Marian’s comment on how Walter and Laura’s children will speak for her made me think of the differences between how the children from illegitimate marriages and the children from legitimate marriages are portrayed in the novel. While it seems that the children of Laura and Walter are going to grow up in a strong and happy marriage, and become the new voice of a new generation, the children that were born outside of marriage – Anne and Percival –both end up in the grave.
Marian’s comments that the children will “speak for [her]” in “their language” (Collins 621) suggests that the children will be a part of a new generation that will speak of her struggles as a woman in the Victorian society. The strength and intelligence that she has shown throughout the novel will then be a part of what the children will inherit from her. Since Marian remained an unmarried woman, the children that will “speak for her” then suggests further that Collins considered it to be a woman’s right to remain unmarried if she so wished it. The children are therefore portrayed to become advocates for radical movements in the society. Additionally, Walter junior is at the end of the story revealed to be the new heir of Limmeridge House, further showing that he has a bright future ahead of him.
However, Anne and Percival’s fates fare for the worse than the children of Walter and Laura. They were both born outside of marriage, as Anne was a result of an affair Laura’s father had, and Percival’s parents were unable to be legally married. Both Anne and Percival are portrayed to have something “wrong” with them: While Anne is described to be mentally handicapped, Percival is throughout the novel depicted to be the villain of the story, along with Count Fosco. Additionally, they both die at the end of the novel: Anne’s tombstone hardly gets a description, compared to the fake tombstone of Laura’s, and there is not even a mention of a funeral for Percival.
The Victorian society was, at this time, concerned with the single women like Marian. Like Greg’s article demonstrates, many men worried about “women, more or less well educated…[retire] to a lonely and destitute old age…they have nothing to do, and none to love, cherish and obey” (Greg 159). I therefore wonder why Collins chose to protest against this idea of women in the novel, but still portrayed children from illegitimate marriages as either challenged or evil, and doom them both to death. As Walter and Laura got married at the end of the novel, it suggests that Collins’ solution for a successful family is marriage, but not love, as Percival’s parents did love each other, but had to remain unmarried. I am therefore left wondering why an author would protest against the ideas that Greg demonstrate in his article, but still maintain the idea that only children within wedlock can succeed in life.
It seems to me that everything in this novel boils down to property rights. I think the reason that Collins’ presents Marian’s “redundancy” less dangerous than illegitimate children is because Marian’s name never owned or promised her any inheritance. She’s the daughter of a remarried woman and so any property that may have been in her mother’s line was most likely transferred to Mr. Philip Fairlie upon their marriage. Similarly, Anne does not have any claim to any property. Her mother committed adultery with an already married man which makes Anne the daughter of a woman with no right to the father’s property. I think this is why the readers are supposed to feel sympathy for Anne– she never had anything to claim for herself so when she dies it is as if she never existed because she has nothing to pass on. Percival on the other hand, is villainous because he is the illegitimate son of a father who did not take responsibility for his property after his death.“The sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children” (554) which explains, perhaps, the sins Percival committed during his life to make up for his father’s neglect. Just as we see property passed down from father to son, so is criminal karma.
Your wonder makes me think. If Collins disagrees with the ideas Greg displayed in his article and provides children of wedlock with successful lives, is he rallying against the idea of marriage or subtly pointing out the flaws of property rights being tied to marriage? Legitimate children as you have observed, are more important than illegitimate children when in comes to inheritance but does Collins’ “damaging” of Sir Percival and Anne imply he doesn’t find illegitimate children capable of inheriting or are they damaged because they could not inherit and therefore left to survive on their own without aid from the previous generation (like Marian will receive from Walter and Laura’s children).
I understand your thoughts and reasoning behind illegitimate and how they end up dead and are depicted negatively. However, I question your statement that only children within wedlock succeed in life within the book. I don’t know if I would say that Walter and Laura necessarily ‘succeed in life’ considering that Walter and Laura’s marriage exists despite Walter also showing love and admiration for Marian. Additionally the pain and suffering that Laura had to endure when she loses her identity, and her abuse she suffers through from Sir Percival also do not define a successful life. Yes, Laura and Walter in the end are successfully married, but I do not believe that because they were born legitimate did they have ‘successful lives’.
I really enjoyed how you focused on children in a Victorian context. I’m interested in how to expanding this to ideas of family because there are no traditionally complete families in The Woman in White among the main characters. Laura and Marian have essentially no parents. Walter has just his mother. And Percival and the Count have no parents at all that we meet. If there is a focus on children, where are all the parents? Walter and Marian are the closest we get to a mother and father team, but they aren’t married. So is the only marker of successful childrearing being married? Or is there another meaning behind the lack of family dynamics shown?
Wow! I never thought about the binary between baby Walter’s life as a legitimate child that came from a legal marriage and Anne and Percival’s life who were both deemed illegitimate. It does seem a little insane that the whole fuss of the novel revolves around Laura’s inheritance and then by the end of the novel her inheritance and the entire Limmerage estate all ends up going to a new-born baby boy! Even though Sir Percival is a grown man, even if he tried to work hard to build his status and genuinely deserved Laura he still would have no chance of inheriting the estate. But a baby if ends up getting it all instead! If Walter and Laura had a baby girl then the Limmerage estate would probably have been up in the air and regardless of Laura being the closest descendent, because she is a woman she would have still never received its property.